The first intensive exploration of the
unrecognized psychological and social aspects of this increasingly
controversial American cultural practice. Endorsed by dozens of
professionals in psychology, psychiatry, child development, pediatrics,
obstetrics, childbirth education, sociology and anthropology.

"Parents do not know what they are choosing, and physicians do not feel what they are doing."

Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., author

"In response to circumcision, the baby
cries a helpless, panicky, breathless, high-pitched cry!...[or] lapses
into a semi-coma. Both of these states...are abnormal states in the
newborn."

Justin Call, M.D., pediatrician

"Doctors who circumcise are the most
resistant to change. They will not admit that they made a critical
mistake by amputating an important part of the penis."

Paul Fleiss, M.D., pediatrician

"In this case, the old dictum 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems to make good sense."

Eugene Robin, M.D., professor

"A whole life can be shaped by an old trauma, remembered or not."

Lenore Terr, M.D., child psychiatrist

"If we are to have real peace, we must begin with the children."

Mahatma Gandhi

"We are interconnected. When a baby boy's sexuality is not safe, no one's sexuality is safe."

Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., author

Explaining Claims of Medical Benefits

Our science is affected by our cultural values.

Circumcision is the only surgery in history ever advocated as a widespread
means of preventing disease. In the last fifty years, circumcision proponents in
the medical profession have promoted various claims. One medical claim for
circumcision is that it decreases the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI)
in the first year of life. However, the UTI studies this position is based on
have been criticized by other physicians, most notably by the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP). They concluded that the test designs and methods of these
studies may have “flaws.” A similar study found no confirmed cases of UTI in
intact male infants without urinary birth defects. Furthermore, the UTI defense
of circumcision is weak, not just because the methods are flawed, but because
the logic and reasoning leading to the conclusion are flawed.

The UTI studies do not justify routine infant circumcision for the following
reasons:

Even according to the questionable studies, the overwhelming majority
(96-99 percent) of intact male infants do not get UTIs in the first year. It
is not reasonable to subject them to circumcision and the associated pain
without demonstrable benefit.

The studies do not consider the potential harm caused by circumcision. The
rate of surgical complications is reported to be from 0.2 to 38 percent. (The
higher rate included complications reported during the infants’ first year.)
There are at least twenty different complications including hemorrhage,
infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death. Other harm includes loss
of the foreskin and behavioral consequences.

Circumcision involves cutting off normal, healthy, functioning tissue to
prevent potential UTI problems in the future. There is no disease or infection
present at the time of surgery. If we were to apply this principle in trying
to prevent other potential problems, then we would be pulling healthy teeth to
prevent cavities. Clearly, this principle is irrational.

UTI is treatable with antibiotics. If good medical practice requires the
least intrusive form of effective treatment, then circumcision is not
justified. Circumcision is a radical surgical treatment.

Most of these arguments would be applicable to any claimed medical benefit.
Circumcision advocates can only make the dubious claim that an unlikely or rare
condition will be less likely to occur in the circumcised male. This benefit is
sufficient justification for many people partly because circumcision is a
surgical procedure that is done on someone else. It is pertinent to ask: Would
you voluntarily submit to an unanesthetized surgical procedure on your healthy
genitals for this “benefit”? The answer is also evident from the fact that
intact male adults are not generally seeking to have themselves circumcised.
Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the flawed reasoning of supposedly
reputable studies has contributed to the confusion on the circumcision issue.

Indeed, the medical community itself has acknowledged that it has not
maintained very high standards in its published work. Researchers and authors
Charles and Daphne Maurer cite an editorial published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association:

In a study of 149 articles selected at random from ten widely
read and highly regarded medical periodicals . . . less than 28% have sufficient
statistical support for drawn conclusions.

Maurer and Maurer explain why so much “nonsense” is published: (1)
Experimental design and statistical analysis are not typically taught in medical
school; and (2) medical schools discourage questioning of authorities.

Our science is affected by our cultural values. Circumcision reflects a
cultural value, and a principal method for preserving cultural values is to
disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This “research”
can then be used to support medical practices. This explains the claimed medical
“benefits” of circumcision.

Blind acceptance of science and belief in “objective” reality is imprudent.
There is no such thing as objective observation, because observations are made
by people who have inherent theories and expectations about how things should
be. Studies defending circumcision make this clear by ignoring vital information
(such as the functions of the foreskin) that conflicts with observations,
results, and conclusions.

Because it is unnecessary surgery, the burden of proof in the circumcision
debate rests with those who advocate it. They must show that it is both safe and
effective. Neither has been demonstrated.

The contents of this website are for information only and are
not intended to replace consultation with the appropriate medical practitioner.
Privacy Policy: Any personal information you provide us will not be shared with
anyone outside of the Circumcision Resource Center.